Why is breastfeeding in public acceptable?

Sorry about that

Lefty Bicek wrote: »

Obviously, the other poster is. Duh. If a person says, as the other poster did, that



... then anything else other than breastfeeding, is by definition, not best practice.

For an alternative perspective on that type of judgementalism...

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/mar/28/an-unrealistic-pressure-mothers-on-what-its-like-to-breastfeed

Apart from all that, my original point was that breastfeeding in public is done more often that is strictly necessary.

Since people think they're smart enough to throw the WHO around, have some of this...

https://www.who.int/nutrition/publications/infantfeeding/bf_counselling_participants_manual3.pdf



So, really, there's nothing whatsoever wrong with expressing milk. Nothing.

It might even seem to be sensible to have a bottle handy in the baby bag when you're out and about.

But who would notice that ?

The WHO have identified issues which can arise in relation to the baby or the mother's health that interrupt normal feeding. I couldn't find the bit about having a handy bottle when out and about, maybe it vanished...

I've worked with new mothers for years, and many have thanked me for my advice which made them shake off the guilt of introducing formula when the breastfeeding didn't work out. It can be miserable for some, and a non judgmental health professional who can help a mother make the best decision for her and her baby is a good resource at a difficult time.

Your insistence that I'm demonising women who don't breastfeed is so wide of the mark, there must be something else going on in your life that's troubling you. But I'm not the problem here.

One eyed Jack

sydthebeat wrote: »

LOL

You're obviously not a sociology student.... As you've just dismissed a whole genre of science....

I’m not a sociology student, no, nor have I dismissed sociology. It’s actually posters arguing the primary function of breasts is breastfeeding who appear to be dismissive of social and cultural influences in human behaviour and psychology.

One of the greatest issues with sociology is cultural and social biases influence on the objectivity of their observations -

https://slate.com/technology/2013/05/weird-psychology-social-science-researchers-rely-too-much-on-western-college-students.html

I wouldn’t be a fan of evolutionary psychology either though as an emerging discipline, precisely for the same reasons as stated above -


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_psychology

One eyed Jack

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Dude I'm genuinely reluctant to call you an idiot but you are making it incredibly difficult not to do so.

Well at least you’re being civil about it, so cheers for that much.

jam_mac_jam

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

One eyed Jack wrote: »

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

Name one alternative to breast milk from a plant for a baby not infant up before they have teeth. Just one. That was or is used. Just one

There are several alternatives today, and throughout human history there have been several alternatives used. Rice milk and soy milk for instance, while they don’t contain all the nutrients as human or animal milk, they are alternatives, which is what you asked for. Whether they are better than human milk or not, I would suggest it depends on the circumstances. In some circumstances where alternatives were tried, infants simply died. We also know that the nutritional value of human milk is influenced by the mothers diet and environment, and contaminants have been found in human milk in some circumstances, but it was determined the benefits outweighed the risks. Nowadays people are seeking natural alternatives to human milk because they don’t want to breastfeed, and they don’t want to use formula.You’re trying to be as specific as the earlier poster who pointed out that soy milk is not recommended for infants under six months. I personally wouldn’t recommend anyone drink that shìte, but it is an alternative to human milk which was used and is used, which is what you asked for. Do I recommend it? No. Is it an alternative source of nutrition derived from plants? Yes.

So none then. Thanks. You keep changing your argument. I asked for an alternative as you argued that there are some that were used in the past. There were notThere are no plant based alternative that is suitable or was used in the past

RacoonQueen wrote: »

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

Yes. We gave babies plants, there are many alternatives....

Breastfeeding is cultural and learned behaviour by new born.

Holy Jesus I think this must be the stupidest post I've ever seen on boards and that really does take some doing.

Breastfeeding is one of the most natural things in the world. In what way would it be cultural. We produce milk purely to feed our babies. How do you define that as cultural?

Maybe read anything else I have said here? I am obviously being sarcastic...maybe have a read in future before jumping in?

Gwen Cooper

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I’m not a sociology student, no, nor have I dismissed sociology. It’s actually posters arguing the primary function of breasts is breastfeeding who appear to be dismissive of social and cultural influences in human behaviour

Absolutely a hill I’m willing to die on. Breasts exist so women can feed their babies, just like with other mammals.

I never said that people are not supposed to find boobs attractive, but ffs, you’re denying science here saying that boobs exist for sexual purposes and that we’re not even supposed to breastfeed.

We have boobs to breastfeed. That’s why we classify as mammals.

volchitsa

TommyGun50 wrote: »

On what basis do you believe those who object to breastfeeding in public do so because they are unable to separate sexuality from the sight of breasts? You seem to be assuming this with no basis.

Have you considered some people find the sight quite disturbing and therefore would like it to not be acceptable? If you believe public nudity should not be acceptable you can't use the argument to "just look away".

I think breastfeeding in public should be acceptable, but I also accept that others don't and I wouldn't be so arrogant to tell them that I'm right and they're wrong as it's a subjective argument.

In society it's impossible for everyone to agree on what's acceptable and what's not so it typically comes down to a combination of practicality and the numbers who believe one thing compared to the numbers who believe the alternative. Welcome to society, you don't get to unilaterally impose your will on everyone.

For the health of the child it's generally best to breastfeed, a lot of Mothers prefer not to though.

No, I've already given a possible alternative explanation, one I actually find more convincing TBH so don't bother lecturing me. I was replying according to what has been said here by other posters.

(What other explanations do you think are involved BTW?)

paleoperson

Gwen Cooper wrote: »

Absolutely a hill I’m willing to die on. Breasts exist so women can feed their babies, just like with other mammals.

I never said that people are not supposed to find boobs attractive, but ffs, you’re denying science here saying that boobs exist for sexual purposes and that we’re not even supposed to breastfeed.

We have boobs to breastfeed. That’s why we classify as mammals.

I believe his point is that female breasts are much larger than they need to be purely to hold milk, hence it's not purely a feeding role. Ever hear of the reason for the peacock's tail? It's much larger than it needs to be, as pointed out by Darwin in his Origin of Species among others. There are plenty of theories for this, but they all take it's attracting the opposite sex as an obvious fact. I learned about this in the animal behaviour class in university. It's fine if you didn't know, but it would be nice if people would stop arguing moot and clueless points shown to be false.

suicide_circus

breasts clearly have two roles. multi functional, if you will.

Plumbthedepths

TommyGun50 wrote:

In society it's impossible for everyone to agree on what's acceptable and what's not so it typically comes down to a combination of practicality and the numbers who believe one thing compared to the numbers who believe the alternative. Welcome to society, you don't get to unilaterally impose your will on everyone.

Agreed and that is why societies have laws and the equal status act recognises the right of women to breastfeed their children in both public and private. People getting offended at the sight of a baby being breastfed need to realise their outrage does not trump a legal right.

Gwen Cooper

paleoperson wrote: »

I believe his point is that female breasts are much larger than they need to be purely to hold milk, hence it's not purely a feeding role. Ever hear of the reason for the peacock's tail? It's much larger than it needs to be, as pointed out by Darwin in his Origin of Species among others. There are plenty of theories for this, but they all take it's attracting the opposite sex as an obvious fact. I learned about this in the animal behaviour class in university. It's fine if you didn't know, but it would be nice if people would stop arguing moot and clueless points shown to be false.

I’m responding to his idea that breastfeeding is not the primary reason why people have breasts.

One eyed Jack

Gwen Cooper wrote: »

Absolutely a hill I’m willing to die on. Breasts exist so women can feed their babies, just like with other mammals.

I never said that people are not supposed to find boobs attractive, but ffs, you’re denying science here saying that boobs exist for sexual purposes and that we’re not even supposed to breastfeed.

We have boobs to breastfeed. That’s why we classify as mammals.

Hold your horses there Gwen! When, please, have I ever said women aren’t even supposed to breastfeed? You might be confusing me with another poster who might have said something similar, because I sure as hell would never say something like that!

You accuse me of denying science and yet try to limit our understanding of evolution to one that fits with a narrative that suits your opinions, in spite of overwhelming evidence which outright contradicts your beliefs.

Evolution doesn’t care how we classify ourselves, because it doesn’t have the capacity to care. It just happens. We evolved from something else that didn’t look remotely like we do now, and we continue to evolve, and due to factors like changes in our diets, sometimes there are more subtle changes happening in the present that we aren’t aware of are changing until we look back on how we have evolved, and for no apparent reason, well...

the breast has always been more than the sum of its parts. That's why these new figures about bra sizes are interesting. If the average shoe size was up, no one would give two hoots. But breasts are sexy and thrilling – most of us want to have or to hold a perfect pair of boobs. Their preferred size and presentation are culturally significant, and the idea of what makes an ideal breast changes. Social psychologists have found that preferred size increased steadily from the flat-chested 1920s up until the early 1960s, when smaller breasts became more popular again. Research in the late 1990s found larger boobs were yet again more appealing.

Why are British women's breasts getting bigger?


You’re gonna need a bigger pair of hills to die on Gwen

Plumbthedepths

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Dude I'm genuinely reluctant to call you an idiot but you are making it incredibly difficult not to do so.

Well, he (of course he's a he) is correct in that nature (evolution) has no intention. It isn't a telelogical process, people who have the most basic education in science tend to bristle when someone says that evolutionary change happens for a particular purpose.

Evolution doesn't have an intent, and human beings regularly do overcome our instincts.

I think in this case, with all the benefits that we now know breastfeeding brings, the questions is -- why should it be something to be hidden away?

volchitsa

paleoperson wrote: »

I believe his point is that female breasts are much larger than they need to be purely to hold milk, hence it's not purely a feeding role. Ever hear of the reason for the peacock's tail? It's much larger than it needs to be, as pointed out by Darwin in his Origin of Species among others. There are plenty of theories for this, but they all take it's attracting the opposite sex as an obvious fact. I learned about this in the animal behaviour class in university. It's fine if you didn't know, but it would be nice if people would stop arguing moot and clueless points shown to be false.

Umm, that's not really because it's "big" though - it's because the male peacock waves his tail around in an identifiable mating display. And males who have less impressive tails are less successful in getting the female. Slight difference with female breasts, where I don't believe there is any such correlation.


(The level of circular thinking around here is amazing.)

Gwen Cooper

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Hold your horses there Gwen! When, please, have I ever said women aren’t even supposed to breastfeed? You might be confusing me with another poster who might have said something similar, because I sure as hell would never say something like that!

You accuse me of denying science and yet try to limit our understanding of evolution to one that fits with a narrative that suits your opinions, in spite of overwhelming evidence which outright contradicts your beliefs.

Evolution doesn’t care how we classify ourselves, because it doesn’t have the capacity to care. It just happens. We evolved from something else that didn’t look remotely like we do now, and we continue to evolve, and due to factors like changes in our diets, sometimes there are more subtle changes happening in the present that we aren’t aware of are changing until we look back on how we have evolved, and for no apparent reason, well...

the breast has always been more than the sum of its parts. That's why these new figures about bra sizes are interesting. If the average shoe size was up, no one would give two hoots. But breasts are sexy and thrilling – most of us want to have or to hold a perfect pair of boobs. Their preferred size and presentation are culturally significant, and the idea of what makes an ideal breast changes. Social psychologists have found that preferred size increased steadily from the flat-chested 1920s up until the early 1960s, when smaller breasts became more popular again. Research in the late 1990s found larger boobs were yet again more appealing.

Why are British women's breasts getting bigger?


You’re gonna need a bigger pair of hills to die on Gwen

Oh I’m sorry, aren’t you the one who said that we only breastfeed because we learned it from observing other mammals?

Plumbthedepths

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote:

Well, he (of course he's a he) is correct in that nature (evolution) has no intention. It isn't a telelogical process, people who have the most basic education in science tend to bristle when someone says that evolutionary change happens for a particular purpose.

Personally I believe there is 'intent' or reason if you will in nature. Otherwise it's believing random chaos just proves to be amazingly beneficial in the support of life.

5uspect

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It’s more convenient for some people than breastfeeding in public, which is the whole point of the thread. It’s also more convenient than breastfeeding for all the reasons you listed too.

I’ve heard that idea that it’ll ruin their breasts mainly from young women in their 20’s, and like you said, I understand why they’d feel that way. I don’t think it’s a pity or anything else, I just think it is what it is. I’m not going to argue against them - they know what’s best for themselves, someone that’s all too often overlooked in these discussions about what’s best for their babies.

I think describing social progress as a tragedy is hyperbolic chicken licken style thinking tbh. It ignores the reality of many people’s lives in favour of ideological interests. I get why you’d say it’s a tragedy, but if the argument in favour of breastfeeding is that it is natural, then by that same standard - the idea that it’s disgusting and something to be discouraged and shamed, is just as natural, in humans anyway. It’s how society progresses - over time we drop some ideas, it’s why we don’t still live outdoors even though that’s natural too.

I don’t think it’s hyperbolic to call women being asked to cover up or to be shunned to the toilet for simply feeding the baby a tragedy. If anything social progress recognises a woman’s autonomy.

fash

volchitsa wrote: »

That's only one theory, not a proven function, unlike milk production which is an actual function. Cows udders are massive but we don't consider that this means they serve as anything other than to provide milk. Our upright stance is why breasts have become so visible, so it's not surprising that they are noticed by men, but various parts of the woman's body are mentioned at least as often in love poems and erotica than her breasts.

orangutans are as upright as humans yet don't have large breasts. Early humans were upright yet didn't have large breasts. Your explanation doesn't hold water. For apes, there is literally a straight line between size and size of breast - except for (modern) humans. You have no explanation for that.

One eyed Jack

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

I think in this case, with all the benefits that we now know breastfeeding brings, the questions is -- why should it be something to be hidden away?

Because social standards dictate cultural values about human behaviour. I don’t think the question is why should it be hidden away (because it really isn’t), but why are some people so keen to make breastfeeding what appears to be on social media an exhibitionist sport!

Even Facebook up until recently banned sharing photos of breastfeeding as it was considered a violation of the company’s community standards -

https://m.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/06/11/facebook-breastfeeding-photo-ban-lifted-freethenipple-campaign-pictures_n_5484788.html?guccounter=1


Some people’s pretence that they “don’t understand” why other people would have an issue with it, is disingenuous, to put it kindly. I find it incredible to believe that having grown up in Western society they wouldn’t be aware at least on some level, of social standards influence on human behaviour and psychology.

Plumbthedepths

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Personally I believe there is 'intent' or reason if you will in nature. Otherwise it's believing random chaos just proves to be amazingly beneficial in the support of life.

*Ross's face when Phoebe from Friends says she's never so much felt 'pulled' by gravity, as pushed*

Seriously, what??

This isn't a matter of opinion, it's a question of fact.

Evolution does not operate with intent. It's, by its nature, a reflection of the past. It doesn't even conceive of a future.

This is not the same as chaos. You really need to do some reading on the basics of evolution.

Plumbthedepths

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote:

This isn't a matter of opinion, it's a question of fact.

I said it's what I believe, I also know at a time in the past it was accepted as fact that the world was flat and it was heresy to suggest otherwise, also that a vacuum was not possible as it would deny the existence of God

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote:

This is not the same as chaos. You really need to do some reading on the basics of evolution.

Thanks for the suggestion but like so much in life I'll ignore it.

Plumbthedepths

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

I said it's what I believe, I also know at a time in the past it was accepted as fact that the world was flat and it was heresy to suggest otherwise, also that a vacuum was not possible as it would deny the existence of God

That's a form of the Galileo Gambit, which is a logical fallacy.

When you're debating with someone who is openly endorsing scientific ignorance/ logical fallacies, it's time to bow out.

Have a good weekend.

Plumbthedepths

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote:

When you're debating with someone who is openly endorsing scientific ignorance/ logical fallacies, it's time to bow out.

Using an American sitcom to insult another poster is a sign of genuine debate? Did you think you would receive a proper response with that behaviour? Really.
Enjoy your weekend.

Reviews and Books Galore

What's wrong with seeing breasts as sexual? Its the same as shaming a woman for seeing the shape of a mans head as sexual :P

You'd swear women are the virgin mother Mary these days.

Tbh, I wouldn't care if a woman was breastfeeding in public, and I would also see why it might freak people out.

One eyed Jack

Gwen Cooper wrote: »

Oh I’m sorry, aren’t you the one who said that we only breastfeed because we learned it from observing other mammals?

No Gwen I didn’t say that we only breastfeed because we learned it from observing other mammals. I did say that breastfeeding is not instinctive in women, and I did say that women breastfeeding infants is a learned behaviour.

It’s a behaviour that was once thought to be instinctive, but nowadays due to research that has been done, we questioned what we once thought to be true, because there is sufficient evidence to question the beliefs in some societies about women, and in this case specifically in relation to whether or not breastfeeding is an instinctive behaviour in women, because that’s what they have breasts for, right?

No. That is a utilitarian perspective which ignores so much cultural and social influences in a society.

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

No Gwen I didn’t say that we only breastfeed because we learned it from observing other mammals. I did say that breastfeeding is not instinctive in women, and I did say that women breastfeeding infants is a learned behaviour.

Do you have some evidence for this?

sydthebeat

Of course evolution has an "intent"

It has one, which is overarching for all species....

That reason is survival.

Gwen Cooper

One eyed Jack wrote: »

No Gwen I didn’t say that we only breastfeed because we learned it from observing other mammals. I did say that breastfeeding is not instinctive in women, and I did say that women breastfeeding infants is a learned behaviour.

It’s a behaviour that was once thought to be instinctive, but nowadays due to research that has been done, we questioned what we once thought to be true, because there is sufficient evidence to question the beliefs in some societies about women, and in this case specifically in relation to whether or not breastfeeding is an instinctive behaviour in women, because that’s what they have breasts for, right?

No. That is a utilitarian perspective which ignores so much cultural and social influences in a society.

Can you please link me to a peer reviewed scientific study that shows that breastfeeding is not as instinctive as we once thought it is?

sydthebeat

sydthebeat wrote: »

Of course evolution has an "intent"

It has one, which is overarching for all species....

That reason is survival.

This is just wrong.

Evolution just happens, it doesn't carry on with some grand design. Evolution is not forward-thinking. Seriously, do some basic googling and then come back to us?

OPollo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

No Gwen I didn’t say that we only breastfeed because we learned it from observing other mammals. I did say that breastfeeding is not instinctive in women, and I did say that women breastfeeding infants is a learned behaviour.

It’s a behaviour that was once thought to be instinctive, but nowadays due to research that has been done, we questioned what we once thought to be true, because there is sufficient evidence to question the beliefs in some societies about women, and in this case specifically in relation to whether or not breastfeeding is an instinctive behaviour in women, because that’s what they have breasts for, right?

No. That is a utilitarian perspective which ignores so much cultural and social influences in a society.

U feed ur baby with potatoes and ... umm, what the mankind used to feed their babies so ?

WomanSkirtFan8

Because its the most natural thing for a mother to do.